Table of contents

26. THE HOSPITAL OF ST. JAMES, WESTMINSTER

The hospital of St. James for leprous women,
situated west of Charing, in the parish of St.
Margaret's, Westminster, is said by Stow to
have owed its origin to some London citizens
who founded it at a period previous to the Conquest. (fn. 1) There is, however, no record of its
existence until Henry II by a charter guaranteed
the sisters in their possessions and encouraged
people to give to them. (fn. 2) King John, in 1205,
confirmed to them a hide of land in Hampstead,
40 acres of land in 'Northesel,' and a tenement
in Cheap at the end of Bread Street, London,
the gifts of Alexander Barentin, William son of
the Lady and Stephen Blund, and granted that
they should hold all their lands with sac and
soc, tol and team, infangenthef, and with all
liberties, free customs and acquittances. (fn. 3) To
judge by the charter of Henry III in 1242,
which is identical with that of John, (fn. 4) they can
have made no further acquisitions of land for
some time, though they may have received
grants of money, such as thirty marks given to
the hospital by Richard de Wendover in 1250
for the establishment of a chantry. (fn. 5) The house,
however, does not seem to have been rich, and
the ordinance of the Legate Ottobon (fn. 6) about
1267, that the number of eight brothers and
sixteen sisters was not to be exceeded must have
been intended to benefit the hospital. In 1275
King Edward exempted it from payment of the
twentieth, (fn. 7) and in 1290 he exacted no payment
for the grant of an annual fair for which the
brothers had petitioned. (fn. 8) They had asked at
the same time that their charters might be confirmed without fees as they were poor. (fn. 9) The
statutes of Legate Ottobon and Richard, abbot of
Westminster, (fn. 10) to which reference has already
been made, form the basis of all subsequent
ordinances for the house. The rule of St.
Augustine was to be read four times a year in
English before the brothers and sisters; a chapter
was to be held every Sunday, when faults were
to be corrected; the brothers and sisters were to
confess once a week and communicate four times
a year; all were to be present at the services,
and after there should be no drinking or meeting
of the brothers for talking; obedience to the
head was enjoined, and anyone found rebellious,
drunken, or contentious, after a second offence
was to be punished at the will of the abbot; no
brother was to eat, drink, or sleep in the town
or suburb, except in a religious house, or in that
of the king or of a bishop; silence must be
observed at meals, of which there were to be only
two a day; the brothers were to eat with the
master, and food and drink should be the same
for all; the sisters were to have a double allowance of bread and ale on St. James's Day; the
clothes worn by brothers, chaplains, and sisters
were to be of one colour, russet or black; sisters
or brothers guilty of incontinency were to
receive corporal punishment; the guardian of
the spiritualities should have a companion in his
work of keeping the ornaments and oblations;
oblations were to be shared by all the members
of the house.

The injunctions made after a visitation in
1277 by the sub-prior and two monks of St.
Peter's (fn. 11) are almost identical, but there are one
or two alterations and additions which are not
without significance: if any brother be found
contentious or drunken, correction shall be given
on the following day, and not postponed until
the next chapter; no brother shall eat or drink
at any hour with the sisters, nor shall the brothers
enter the sisters' house, or the sisters that of the
brothers. In other ordinances, apparently about
the same date, (fn. 12) it was enjoined that the vigil after
the death of a brother or sister was to be kept
without drinking or unseemly noise, that the
sisters were not to bequeath goods without the
prior's leave, while certain punishments were
prescribed in the case of the brothers and sisters
quarrelling and striking one another.

Conclusions might be drawn from these injunctions not very flattering to the house, and
perhaps with justice, since there can be no doubt
about the general laxness of administration and
conduct prevailing there in the early fourteenth
century.

At a visitation of the abbot of Westminster in
1317 (fn. 13) it was found that the master had not
held the Sunday chapter, and through his fault the
sisters and lay-brothers had not communicated
four times a year. He was also accused of
having special beer made for himself and one of
the brothers, John de Attueston, but he denied
that this had been given to any but visitors. The
charges against Attueston, who was then prior,
were more serious: it was said, and evidently
with truth, that he refused to give an account of
the goods of the hospital received by him though
he had sworn to do so, that he had divided the
oblations offered on the feasts of St. James and
St. Dunstan between himself and the master, and
that he was in the habit of getting drunk and
then of using abusive language to the brothers
and sisters, and of disclosing the secret business
of the chapter.

In 1319 the abbot had to enjoin (fn. 14) the observance of the rule as to weekly chapters and the
brothers and sisters receiving communion four
times a year. He also ordered that the present
number of three brothers and six sisters should
be increased to that of eight brothers and thirteen
sisters prescribed by the foundation charter, if
the resources of the hospital allowed, and that
four of the brothers should be priests in order to
relieve the house of the cost of two secular
chaplains; the master was not to dispose
of important business without the consent of the
brothers and sisters; the sisters were not to keep
legacies except with the prior's leave; the
brothers were forbidden to go to the sisters'
rooms; men were to be appointed by the master
to look after the brothers in case of illness so that
women should henceforth be excluded from such
work. The condition of the hospital was, however, worse than ever in 1320, (fn. 15) nor is it surprising considering that John de Attueston was then
master. The property of the house was neglected
so that rents had fallen off, and woods were cut
down by the master as he pleased without the
consent of the brothers and sisters. As to
discipline there seems to have been absolutely
none: one of the brothers, Richard de Thame,
frequented a tavern and spent the money of the
convent on his pleasures; another, John de
Sydenham, used the rents which he collected to
secure followers, for he aspired to the post of
master; he also went to the sisters' rooms without the master's leave and ate and drank there in
spite of the prohibition. It is clear that the
sisters had no respect for the master or for the
prior, spreading slanderous reports of the one and
accusing the other of not knowing his office, and
they did not deny that they were disobedient to
both. Unfortunately they themselves were not
examples of virtue: one of them, Margery
Flyntard, had broken her vow of chastity; and
the abbot declared that through their wandering
about and the access of regular and secular
persons to them not only scandal but crimes had
resulted, and ordered that in future they were
not to leave their rooms except for the cloister
adjoining or to go to church.

Much the same disclosures were made when
the abbot visited the hospital in 1334. (fn. 16) John
de Sydenham, who had now realized his desire
to be master, (fn. 17) was reported guilty of incontinence, and a similar allegation coupled the names
of Brother John de Hoton and Sister Juliana.
For the latter charge there may have been
foundation since the abbot noted that some of
the brothers visited the sisters' rooms, and
ordered that the rule made in this respect should
not be infringed in future.

The abbot's visitations and ordinances cannot
be said to have been productive of reform, nor
was such a result likely as long as bad conduct
was no bar to promotion. It would be interesting
to know at what date John de Hoton was accused of the murder of a woman in the hospital,
as the case might have determined the king to
put an end to the abbot's authority there.
Hoton was master in 1337 (fn. 18) and again in
1345, (fn. 19) but not in 1339, (fn. 20) for it was Henry de
Purle who refused to obey the abbot's citation to
appear before him, and was excommunicated in
consequence. (fn. 21) As the abbot had been prohibited
by the king from all interference with the
hospital he was himself attached for contempt.
The abbot contended that the hospital was held
of him by fealty and suit at his court and by
service of 20s. per annum and that the right of
visitation had always belonged to the abbey
except in case of a vacancy, when the king's
treasurer had exercised it. It was, however,
proved from the records that in 1252 the king
had committed the custody of the hospital to the
treasurer for the time being, and it was said that
ever since he, as in right of the king, had given
leave to the brothers and sisters to elect the
master, had confirmed the elections, and exercised
the right of visitation. (fn. 22) The inference was that
the king must have possessed these powers in
1252 or he could not have given them to the
treasurer, and according to the court the abbot
himself had proved that the king was the patron
by his admission that the treasurer visited the
hospital when the abbey was vacant. Judgement
was therefore given in favour of the king. The
verdict certainly does not seem just. According
to some constitutions of the time of Henry III (fn. 23)
the abbot had had jurisdiction, for it was he who
then appointed the prioress from among the
sisters. The priests of St. James also acknowledged the subjection of the hospital to the abbey
by taking part in the procession at St. Peter's
four times a year. If it be contended that these
rules may have been earlier than 1252, yet it is
an undoubted fact that the abbot had since that
time repeatedly visited the hospital, and as abbot,
not as treasurer. (fn. 24) Further inquiry was ordered
by the king in 1342, but without any benefit to
the abbey. (fn. 25)

The Black Death carried off the warden and
all the brothers and sisters except William de
Weston, who, in May, 1349, was made master,
but in 1351 was deposed for wasting the goods
of the hospital. (fn. 26) It is said that in 1353 the
house was without inmates, (fn. 27) and the place
appears to have been in much the same condition
in 1384, when Thomas Orgrave, the master,
with the consent of the treasurer, let to Elizabeth
Lady le Despenser for her life, at a rent of
10 marks, practically the whole hospital, viz.,
the houses within the gate in front of the door
of the principal hall, the hall with the upper and
lower chambers at each end, the stone tower,
the chamber over the entrance, the kitchen and
bakery, the houses assigned to the master, and
all the gardens and ground within the precincts. (fn. 28)
It is possible that the hospital was in need of
funds just then, since a papal relaxation granted
in 1393 (fn. 29) indicates that the chapel was being rebuilt, but money would hardly have been raised
by a lease of the building of the hospital, if the
inmates for whom the rooms were intended had
been there to use them.

Whether the hospital had any ground for the
claims it made to privilege of sanctuary in 1403
it is impossible to say. A horse-thief had taken
refuge in the chapel and the coroner had set
constables to watch him, but one of the chaplains told the men that no officers of the king
ought to guard any felons there under penalty of
excommunication, drove them away, locked the
gates of the hospital and the church doors against
them and allowed the felon to escape. (fn. 30)

Henry VI in 1449 granted to Eton College
the perpetual custody of the hospital after the
death of Thomas Kemp, then warden; (fn. 31) but
Edward IV appears to have resumed possession
of the house, for in 1467, when he made a regrant of the reversion of the hospital to the college,
one of his clerks was warden. (fn. 32) The college,
however, certainly held St. James's from Michaelmas 1480 (fn. 33) until the provost made it
over to Henry VIII in October 1531. (fn. 34) The
number of sisters during this period does not
seem to have varied: in the time of Henry VII
there were four, each of whom received £2 12s.
and a quarter of a barrel of the best beer every
year; (fn. 35) and at the dissolution of the hospital an
annual pension of £6 13s. 4d. was assigned by
the king to each of four sisters, three of whom
were widows. (fn. 36) In the reign of Henry VII
there were also two chaplains, (fn. 37) the stipend in
this case being £6 13s. 4d.

In the early fourteenth century the average
income of the house was probably about £35,
although in 1335 it was double that amount. (fn. 38)
At the Dissolution it was worth £100 a year
according to Tanner. It had been rated at half
this amount in 1524 for the procurations due to
Wolsey, (fn. 39) but the religious houses on this occasion
were for the most part estimated much below
their real value. Its property then consisted of
160 acres bordering the high road from Charing
Cross to Aye-hill, 18 acres in Knightsbridge, and
some land in Chelsea and Fulham; (fn. 40) a tenement called the White Bear in the parishes of
St. Mary Magdalen and All Saints, in Westcheap
and Bread Street, London, (fn. 41) and lands called
'Chalcotes' and 'Wyldes' in the parishes of
Hendon, Finchley, and Hampstead, (fn. 42) co. Middlesex. Much of this the hospital already owned
in the fourteenth century, as the master's accounts of that period mention arable and meadow
land round the house and the lands to the north
of London. (fn. 43) It also owned until 1465 the
advowson of St. Alban's, Wood Street, with an
annual pension of a mark (fn. 44) of which it was possessed in 1303. (fn. 45)

14. Ibid. Ord. of W. abbot of Westminster. These
appear to be the same as those dated February, 1322,
in Cott. MS. Faust. A. iii, fol. 321–3. In the latter,
however, there is an interesting addition. The abbot
has heard that the rule has been broken by which
married persons cannot become professed without the
consent of the husband or wife, and orders such people
to be expelled, fol. 323.

15. Visitation held before Master Richard de
Gloucester and John de Buterle, vicar-general of the
abbot of Westminster. Doc. of D. and C. of Westm.,
Westm. parc. 2, box 1.

46. Doc. of D. and C. of Westm. Lond. M (2).
He confirmed a grant made by the father of Richard
bishop of London, and Richard Fitz Neal, who held
the bishopric between 1189–99, appears to be the
person meant, for Turold also occurs temp. Henry
Fitz Ailwin, mayor, i.e. c. 1189–1212, Anct. D.
(P.R.O.), A. 7822.

87. B. M. Seals, lxviii, 51. There appears to be
some doubt whether this seal is that of St. James's,
Westminster, but a seal appended to a charter of a
master of this hospital which is now among the
documents of the D. and C. of Westm. (Westm.
parc. 2, box 1) seems to be identical with that here
described.